Abortion

[Mare Tranquillity]

Don't ask him for documentation; he makes it up as he goes. As you can see from the various definitions of sentient that I have provided, most animals from insects up are sentient as they are capable of perception. Further proof that sentience is not what makes a human being a human being.

I think your documentation is mostly invented too, Pale, so at least give him a chance to do the same.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

No definition I have provided has helped your argument anywhere other than in your imagination.



More fallacious appeals to emotion. Your whole argument is falling down around your ears.



Actually, they showed evidence right there in the link I provided you. Sorry the material was over your head.



You really aren't very bright are you? And you have never read roe. And you don't have a clue with regard to constitutional law. Is this childish game really the best you are capable of?



No part of my argument remains unsupported while no part of yours has yet been supported. Sorry guy, you lose.

I suppose I do lose, for now. Good bye everyone.

 

[palerider]

I think your documentation is mostly invented too, Pale, so at least give him a chance to do the same.

Feel free to try and prove it. There is little point in lying about a source in the age of the internet because you will get caught in the lie.

By the way, he doesn't invent documentation, there is none for fantasy. Much like your own arguments.

 

[Dr.Who]

I would be interested in seeing some documentation on this.

Right

It would be pretty hard to prove that an animal does not have perception of pain. Even after one ignores all the avoidance of pain, and the whimpering, and the remembering of painful experiences, just how does one show what is not going on in the brain of an animal?

Meanwhile as a dog owner I am confident that my lab is quite aware that it is his paw that is hurting when he does something to it.

 

[Zylstra]

sorry...but its true.

Because you say so?

 

[Zylstra]

What any individual thinks is irrelavent.

Yet here you are, posting your opinions...

Modern liberalism is not built on individualistic idealism.

Is that what you think?

Is this whole tangent meant to disguise the fact that you can't rationally defend your position on abortion?

I'll take that as a 'No, Zylstra, I have no non-religious argument'

And blacks were believed for a period of time to be something other than human beings and not entitled to any form of human rights.

You think they have rights. You think that what anyone thinks is irrelevant. Hence you think (or at least have said) that your opinion doesn't matter. Why, then, are you still posting?

 

[Zylstra]

Actually, the textbooks I referenced were written by doctors who are acknowledged as being at the top of their field.

What any individual thinks is irrelavent.

not a one of those books demonstrated what you're asserting in this thread

 

[Zylstra]

Your argument is that they are non sentient, but as of yet, you have not proved that sentience is what makes you a human being. Till you prove that they are something other than human beings, you can't get around the constitution.

You claim it's 'wrong', yes?


Demonstrate

 

[Zylstra]

I find no guarantee of the protection of animal rights in the constitution or even any recognition of them.

And whoever said that I enjoy killing animals. I do kill a certain number that I eat. The last time I killed an animal simply because I could was a very long time ago when I was a child. It was a bird, a starling to be exact, with a BB gun.

By the way, it isn't me that is making the argument that because unborns at the early stages are not sentient that they should be allowed to be killed for any or no reason; and that fact should be an indication to folks like Dante who make the sentience argument how wrong they are. If animals are sentient, but not human beings, it stands to reason that sentience is not what makes a human being a human being.

Why is killing a human worse than killing a human being?

 

[Zylstra]

I never denied that fetuses were human beings. I did denie that they are people. There is a difference. And everytime you bring in the law, your argument becomes less valid.

Define: Person

 

[Zylstra]

Legally all human beings are persons. .

Back to arguing law?
I thought this was an ought thread, not an is by a certain interpretation of the law thread

That law can cahnge, btw. remember when we used to have 3/5 persons?

 

[Zylstra]

So, Might makes Right?

Are you a Christian?

 

[Zylstra]

The ability to enjoy a right is not the basis upon which that right is protected.

What is that basis?

And can you demonstrate these 'rights'?

 

[Zylstra]

because it has been scientifically proven.

source?

 

[palerider]

Yet here you are, posting your opinions...

Sorry, but you don't have the slightest idea what my opinions are. I am posting substantiable fact.

Is that what you think?

Nope. It's what I know.

I'll take that as a 'No, Zylstra, I have no non-religious argument'

Still waiting for you to bring forward any religious argument that I have made. Lying didn't work for dante and it won't work for you. If you are going to make the claim that I am making a religious argument, you need to be able to prove it.

You think they have rights. You think that what anyone thinks is irrelevant. Hence you think (or at least have said) that your opinion doesn't matter. Why, then, are you still posting?

I have presented the legal argument and the scientific argument and substantiated every part of it. To date, you have not substantiated any part of your argument. As it stands right now, you lose for failure to support your argument.